occupy wall streethttp://24ahead.com/taxonomy/term/3802/atom/feed2011-11-15T11:25:40-08:00Occupy Wall Street May Day 2013: still fake, still helping the wealthyhttp://24ahead.com/occupy-wall-street-may-day-2013-still-fake-still-helping-wea2013-04-22T13:14:45-07:002013-06-10T12:37:51-07:00admin

Occupy Wall Street is still around and they're still a fake group, either by design or not.

On May Day 2013, they'll be continuing their efforts that have the net effect of helping those they pretend to oppose.

From the emailed "OWS Newsletter":

Once again, Occupy Wall Street will be participating in May Day demonstrations and events in New York City. We rise up in solidarity to celebrate all workers, including undocumented immigrants, and the oppressed. In this era of inequality it is our shared responsibility to speak truth to power and rise up to demand our rights.

...May Day, also known as International Worker's Day, is observed throughout the world as a way to honor the struggles of all working people across history. While this tradition began in the United States, the day is unfamiliar to many Americans and is not officially observed as a holiday. May Day was reclaimed in the United States by immigrant workers in 2006, when they mobilized by the millions to fight for their rights.

OK, now explain why Occupy Wall Street is on the same basic side of the immigration issue as the US Chamber of Commerce, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Tyson Foods, and all the rest.

If Occupy Wall Street opposed amnesty and supportedattrition, they could really stick it to the corrupt elites and on the issue where the elites are most vulnerable and least popular. Instead, Occupy Wall Street does the opposite.

On immigration, OWS sides with the 0.1% who want to lower wages and stands against the 99% whose wages are lowered.

Determining exactly why OWS support policies that would enrich the wealthy while harming everyone else is left as an exercise, but none of the possible explanations are good.

On a lighter note, the official song of the event - entitled "We Stand for Justice Mayday Song 2013" - is below. I left a comment on it that "the music, singing, and lyrics are crap, like something you'd hear on a PBS kids show". On second thought, I think even PBS would reject the song.

UPDATE: Here's my video about their event, followed by the official video:

Movement activists the world over have begun a campaign to create Global Noise in an international potbanging protest on Saturday, October 13th.
The main goal is to foster a feeling of solidarity between all the global movements. Likewise, local occupations and occupiers across the country will be banging on pots and pans, a tactic known as a 'casserole march', in order to gain attention for our shared grievances.
Occupy Town Square along with Strike Debt and many other Occupy Wall Street Affinity Groups are answering the call for a day of #globalNoise.

Little kids throwing tantrums have been known to do the same thing: bang pots and pans in order to gain attention for their grievances. Isn't it time Occupy grew up?
If they have shared grievances, then - if they were completely different people - they could enumerate those grievances and choose the most pressing top few issues. They could develop a list of those on the other side of those issues, and a list of the things those opponents have said or done that they disagree with.
From there, it's just a small step into developing an argument against those actions and statements. After that, a big leap will take them to developing questions designed to reveal the flaws in those actions and statements, and going out and asking their opponents those questions. If Occupy were different people, they could actually challenge their opponents and show them wrong, using the Question Authority plan.
Instead, they just act like little kids throwing tantrums.
But, wait, there's more. On the same day:

We are having an Art Party and Pot Luck to gear up for the Debate. This is a time for us to make banners and signs for the demonstration. Bring art supplies and a Pot Luck dish to share.

Then, on October 16:

The second presidential debate will take place at Hofstra University in Long Island. Join us in protesting a system that does not represent us. Occupy The East End (where the 1% vacation) is collaborating with local and national Occupys. Buses will be leaving NYC at 3pm sharp.

There are many legislators who are close to Occupy in ideology, so the idea that they aren't represented is not accurate. If, by "represent us" they mean there are people with power who believe in sharply different things, then - as with little kids - someone needs to inform Occupy that they can't always get everything they want.
If by "represent us" they mean the debates won't feature questions about their "shared grievances", then there's a solution to that: see the Question Authority plan above, and see also my almost five year old plan for real debates with tough questions.
Putting on the second wouldn't be so difficult for Occupy, if they were different people. They could could conduct mock debates with proxies for Obama and Romney being asked tough questions about the issues of concern to Occupy. That could be live streamed (something Occupy is quite good at) and uploaded to video sharing sites. If the questions were good enough and it was done in a grown-up fashion, that would not only help get the issues that concern Occupy a wider audience, but they could show just how much of a disservice the Commission on Presidential Debates is doing.
But, Occupy leaders can't figure that out, or perhaps don't want to figure that out.
Instead, they just want to bang pots and pans and wave signs like little kids.

For just one of the very many examples of the huge problems that the Occupy Wall Street movement has, consider the following from a report about today's festivities in New York City ( peekURL.com/zjgNRLs ):

"We're just at year one. We have a really big mountain to climb. But we're hoping to get the power back to the people," said Kim Fraczek, 37, who wore an Obama mask. She was with a man, Erik McGregor, 44, who had on a Romney one. They said they were aiming to show the two were controlled by money.

Stunts like that could be considered to be advertising, something that's usually needed to get ideas out there. However, advertising and stunts and tantrums are all Occupy has.
If you want to show that both major candidates are controlled by money, you have to start with a valid, persuasive argument attempting to show that. You have to get your facts together, double-check them, and then lay them out in a way most people will accept. Yet, all Occupy has are the masks, not the backup for their assertions. Some of them might have scrawled some things down here and there, but few outside their movement would be persuaded by it.
My suggested alternative would be for them to assemble such an argument and then to develop a series of questions that would help prove that argument. Then, politicians and others could be asked those questions on video. See Question Authority for more information.
Making arguments and challenging people on their arguments is how you get things done, not wearing masks.

S17 2012: A full list of Occupy Wall Street's major accomplishments, one year laterhttp://24ahead.com/s17-2012-full-list-occupy-wall-streets-major-accomplishments2012-09-15T12:23:13-07:002012-09-15T12:33:41-07:00admin

September 17th ("S17") marks the one year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement and a full slate of events are planned. Let's look back at the glorious past year.

Yes, there are detractors. They point to a seemingly endless string of violent confrontations and fringe ideas that don't even represent 1% of the U.S. populace (note: that might be higher in Canada, where OWS is from). Some even point out that Occupy could have been planned by or nudged by the elites to support policies that help the elites. Some point out that Occupy is a self-discrediting movement that has blocked a popular, mainstream opposition to Wall Street malfeasance.

But - to prove those detractors wrong - I've compiled a list of all the ways that the OWS movement has challenged the elites and all the ways that they've held Wall Street and politicians accountable.

Imagine you're in a room with a barking dog, a stomping elephant, and a dishonest politician. The politician keeps harping on how he's going to do something about the barking dog, but completely ignores the stomping elephant in the room. Shortly before the elephant has crushed all the furniture, you might wonder why the politician keeps ignoring the elephant. You might even wonder if the politician is in the pay of the elephant.
How some leftwing leaders (such as those associated with the Occupy Wall Street movement) deal with immigration is a lot like that.
The barking dog is the issue of corporations trying to profit from private immigration detention facilities and immigration detention in general [1].
The elephant in the room - the one that Occupy leaders keep ignoring - is the fact that major banks and corporations seek profits from massive and illegal immigration. Not only do Occupy leaders ignore that side of things, but they'd help those major banks and corporations increase their profits (such as through guest workers or comprehensive immigration reform).
For instance, some Occupy leaders complain about Wells Fargo investing in private immigration detention prisons. Yet, they'll completely ignore the role Wells Fargo has played in enabling and profiting from illegal immigration (see the last link).
What Wells Fargo is doing is not by any stretch the first time a company has sought to profit from both sides of the ledger. Wells Fargo's investment in detention companies like CCA and GEO might bring in one set of profits, and Wells Fargo giving home loans to and moving money for illegal aliens will bring in another set of profits. Wells Fargo stands to profit both when illegal aliens stay in the U.S. and when they're deported from the U.S.
Yet, Occupy leaders concentrate on the immigration detention part of the equation, and almost completely ignore the much larger profits banks and corporations make from enabling illegal immigration.
If you see OWS or general leftwing leaders who ignore the elephant in the room, call them on it.
For additional background on the elephant in the room that Occupy leaders tend to ignore, see Immigrants Occupy December 18, 2011: OWS are useful idiots for big banks, big business, Federal Reserve, Koch, Bloomberg...
----------------
[1] This site (obviously) doesn't oppose immigration detention in general, just possible cases of unjust enrichment, corruption, and actual instances of abuse associated with it. Some people who claim to just oppose those same things are actually opposed to detention for the most part or completely. In that case, they're supporting what would amount to open borders, and they're also being misleading about it: pretending to support the increased enforcement mandated by comprehensive immigration reform but intending to oppose that enforcement if "reform" passes.

Occupy Wall Street May Day 2012: still fake, still not the 99%http://24ahead.com/occupy-wall-street-may-day-2012-still-fake-still-not-992012-04-30T11:49:02-07:002012-04-30T11:49:02-07:00admin

On Tuesday, May 1 2012 (May Day), the Occupy movement has a series of events planned [1] designed to reinvigorate their movement. That includes the call for a general strike.
None of it is going to work too well: they're still the same people they were before and they still have the same problems as before. They're just repeating failed ideas, hoping for a different result (see Occupy Wall Street for the background).
For instance, the plans of the Los Angeles branch [2] are delusional in an entertaining way:

Occupy Los Angeles is organizing around a "4 Winds" People’s Power Car and Bike Caravan through the urban sprawl of Los Angeles that will culminate in Direct Action in and around the Financial District of downtown LA. People from all sectors of the city will have a chance to plug in to the routes from any corner of the city, helping to shut down the flow of capital while addressing the 99%’s major grievances... Flash occupations, food giveaways, and other direct actions targeting the foreclosure crisis and police brutality will be undertaken at these flashpoints on our slow, city-paralyzing, carnival-esque descent into the center of the city... After a day of actions and outreach that cripples capitalism in the city, Occupy Los Angeles will be hosting a special General Assembly at 7PM

The only thing that's going to do is to make drivers really, really, really mad and turn people against them.
The New York City branch shows yet again that the Occupiers don't represent the interests of most Americans but are more like ANSWER. They're making "immigrants rights" (actually giving illegal aliens new rights they aren't entitled to) a key part of their events [3]. The problem is that puts OWS on the same side as big banks, Michael Bloomberg, the Koch family, Grover Norquist, and many others. Almost all elites support massive or illegal immigration, and it's one of the things that sharply divides them from most Americans. It's also one of the areas where the elites are most vulnerable.
Instead of standing with most Americans on immigration, the Occupy movement stands with the big banks they claim to oppose. The elites of the U.S. and other countries very strongly oppose attempts to encourage illegal aliens to return home (via attrition). The leaders of the Occupy movement are on their side, not on the side of low-wage American workers negatively impacted by illegal immigration.
--------------
[1] occupywallst.org/article/nyc-full-schedule-permitted-and-unpermitted-may-da/
[2] occupymay1st.org
[3] From their press release:

On Thursday, April 26th, representatives of dozens of immigrant, community and labor organizations, along with organizers from the Occupy Wall Street movement, will gather to unveil plans for a massive and historic May Day rally to take place on Tuesday, May 1st at 4PM in Union Square. After months of careful planning, a diverse and united coalition has finalized plans to gather under the banner of “LEGALIZE, ORGANIZE, UNIONIZE”, demanding an end to the criminalization and exploitation of immigrant workers, and the stranglehold of the 1% on communities across the city, state and country. The program for the day will include community speakers, cultural performances, music, food, and celebratory activities for the entire family, including face-painting for children.

If you dislike CNN and their completely inaccurate self description of being a real news site as much as I do, the video below (cached) might just be absolutely hilarious. It features Soledad OBrien and three guests discussing a picture of a supposed restaurant receipt which shows a 1% tip and which includes a supposed note from the patron saying, "Get a real job".
Just one problem: it was all a hoax (link). The receipt was photoshopped; the tip on the real receipt was actually around 20% and there was no note.
It's not known whether the hoax was done just as a prank, or by a supporter or opponent of the Occupy Wall Street movement (an opponent could have done it knowing it would take some OWS and their supporters in the establishment media in, resulting in posts like this).
In any case, O'Brien and CNN fell for it, not showing even the barest regard for journalistic practices. Three other sites that fell for it include the Huffington Post (link), Business Insider (link), and Political Carnival (link).
The last link is like the "liberal" mirror image of things to be found at Gateway Pundit. The Business Insider link has some interesting examples of what look to be sockpuppets smearing someone who thought the picture was fake before that became known.
On a sidenote, while the restaurant story is fake, this proposal to tip less due to Obama being elected isn't: drhelen.blogspot.com/2008/10/should-you-tip-less-in-obama.html3/23/12 UPDATE: The video that was here (AKA4woDYvtw) was deleted because the account it was in was terminated due to copyright complaints by Fox News and others. I replaced it with a video from CNN itself.

The video below shows Occupy Wall Street doing what they do best: help those they pretend to oppose. In this case, they do that by shouting down Rick Santorum at an event in Tacoma, Washington. That then helps Santorum correctly point out how intolerant they are (link).

"I think it's really important for you to understand what this radical element represents, because what they represent is true intolerance," Santorum said, after two protesters were taken to the ground and placed in handcuffs by police.
The protesters, Santorum suggested, "instead of standing here unemployed, yelling at somebody" should instead "go out and get a job."
Santorum's supporters roared their approval, chanting "get a job" back at the Occupiers.

With this post, I've written over a dozen posts since October patiently trying to explain what the Occupiers should be doing: trying to ask politicians and others tough questions. Those shouting Santorum down disagree with him in some way, right? Then at least a few among them must be able to articulate those differences and formulate questions based on those disagreements, right?
Yet, somehow not even one of them is able to do that. Instead, they illustrate their ignorance (we've never had the democracy they think we've lost and that was by design), their delusion (they are not the 99%; even most in the San Francisco Bay Area don't support their antics, link), and their opposition to speech and debate.
If OWS takes over, how would they govern? By throwing glitter on their opponents? By trying through various means to silence their opponents? If they don't want open debate now, then who knows what they'd do in the unlikely event that they got a great deal of power. They've repeatedly shown that they aren't qualified to govern anything.
3/27/12 UPDATE: The account with the video (Youtube ID qtEZwFo7Rz0) was terminated by the user. I replaced it with a news report from the event. While looking for the replacement, I found video of another glitter bombing from South Carolina: peekURL.com/vPZ4ezt . That shows Occupiers at their best: as very shrill and annoying children throwing a tantrum.

The latest plan from the Occupy Wall Street folks is called "Occupy CPAC" (CPAC is the annual "Conservative Political Action Conference"). OccupyCPAC will consist of, per this, "[creating] as much non-violent resistance as possible, and make this a conference the attendees will never forget".
Based on how OWS has done things in the past, that translates into shouting down speakers, throwing glitter on people, street theater, and so on.
Some points:
1. This new effort shows yet again that OWS is an incredibly dumb group that in effect helps those they claim to oppose. If someone had wanted to discredit OWS or their partners in this effort, coming up with a plan like theirs would be a great way to do it.
2. If you're an OWS supporter, compare OccupyDC's plan to my Question Authority plan. I want political leaders to be asked tough questions about their policies so we can finally have in-depth debates about important issues. OWS has no interest in debate: they're totalitarians who just want to silence their opponents. If you support OWS, ask yourself which would better serve your goals:

A) glitterbombing a politician, or
B) asking that same politician a series of tough questions designed to show the flaws in that politician's policies?

All OWS leaders can come up with is A, despite the fact that it won't do anything and B would be actually effective at changing how politicians act.
3. As they have in the past, OWS shows little or no knowledge of or interest in fundamental American concepts. It's fundamentally un-American to try to shout others down rather than engaging them in debate. And, OWS seems to think that the U.S. political system is democracy when it isn't and by design: the founders of the U.S. realized the dangers inherent in the democracy that OWS supports.
4. The OccupyDC plan is not something that 99% of Americans or probably even 5% would sign on to:

this event is another gathering of bigots, media mouthpieces, corrupt politicians, and their 1 percent elite puppet masters... CPAC will parade and attempt to perpetuate the radical right wing’s imperialist ideologies with keynote speakers, movies and banquets dedicated to pursuing its racist, sexist, patriarchal and exploitative agenda... Spectacles will include imperialist topics such as "From Fidel to Chavez: How Do We Stop the Resurgence of Socialism in Latin America?", "Is the ‘Arab Spring’ Good or Bad for America?" and frequent bloviation on "American exceptionalism." Openly racist discourses will be given on "The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American Identity" and "Islamic Law in America: How the Obama Justice Department Is Selling Us Out." The conference will also glorify the role of money in politics in talks such as "How to Raise Money… the Easy Way," "Citizens United Productions Hosts Blogger Briefing" and "Fundraising Secrets from the Billion $ Man."

That reads like a satire of an ANSWER screed, but stripped of any knowledge of what it's discussing and any self-awareness. The possibility exists that OWS was either designed to be a fake opposition to the elites or has been infiltrated by those seeking to make it a fake opposition. Few Americans would sign on to their tactics or their sub-Noam Chomsky ideas, which might be the whole point: create a fake opposition to the elites in order to discredit the idea of opposing the elites.
5. Real or fake, OccupyDC is doing their co-conspirators in this effort no favors:

We will be joining in solidarity with the AFL-CIO, SEIU, National Nurses United, Metro Labor Council, OurDC, and more to make our voices heard in our increasingly top-down, money-corrupted democracy.

See Service Employees International Union and AFL CIO for past coverage of those groups, both of which are fairly mainstream and not given to discussing "imperialist ideologies". If OWS is fake, they're taking groups like those along for the ride.
6. OccupyDC closes on this note:

WE WANT YOUR PRESENCE. WE WANT YOUR ENTHUSIASM. WE WANT YOUR VOICE. TELL YOUR FRIENDS, YOUR FRIENDS’ FRIENDS, AND ANYONE WHO HAS EVER BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF REAL DEMOCRACY, EQUALITY AND POSITIVE DISCOURSE.
We are the 99%. We are unstoppable. Another world is possible.

My first impression of that was, "that has got to be a joke". They're going to try to silence others and block debate, and they call that "positive discourse"? They think we have or want "real democracy", when a core tenet of the U.S. is to avoid "real democracy" (i.e., mob rule)? And, they close with a line reminiscent of the catchphrase of criminal computer hackers, those very same hackers who are enabling future internet crackdowns by creating a problem for those like John Poindexter to "solve"? Either OWS are all completely dumb and completely unaware, or something else is going on here.
7. Finally, let me reiterate what I said above: if you support OWS, compare their plan to my Question Authority plan. If you want to keep the elites in check, pursue my plan. Don't follow borderline fascists who think that glitterbombing and silencing others is "positive discourse".UPDATE: The AFL-CIO admits they're just as dumb as OWS (blog.aflcio.org/2012/02/09/occupy-cpac-summit-of-the-1)

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) will get a warm labor union, progressive welcome tomorrow at its annual conference in Washington. D.C., and we will keep you updated with a live Twitter feed ( hashtag #OccupyCPAC ) courtesy of Metropolitan Washington [D.C.] Council AFL-CIO... The Who’s Who of the 1 percent - like Mitt Romney, Scott Walker, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, Ann Coulter, Grover Norquist and other stars of the extremist rogue's gallery - will be on hand. But so will representatives of the rest of us, the 99 percent, with big puppets, inflatables, chants, songs and of course tents to Occupy CPAC.

Puppets are for children. The AFL-CIO simply lacks the ability to take the otherwise easy step of showing how some of those they pretend to oppose are wrong about some things.

What's on the videos might answer psychological needs that the Occupiers have, but that's not going to keep the elites in check, now is it? For a fraction of the effort they put into these displays they could have actually done something extremely effective, such as "cross-examining" politicians using the Question Authority plan or promoting real debates with tough questions.

Instead, well, there seems to be something wrong with their thinking processes. The OWS protests seem to attract people of a similar mindset: those seeking attention, those prone to emotionalism over logic, those who can't think ahead, those who put showing off to their peers ahead of convincing the undecided, and in general those who can't solve problems. And, that's a problem: OWS - like the Tea Parties before them - are making a lot of noise but doing nothing significant. They're in effect helping the elites by not doing things that are smart (see the plans in the last paragraph).

The videos in the playlist (more may be added later):

* The "Occupirates" from Minneapolis, Minnesota protest in front of US Bank. The Teapartiers have a similar affliction where their response to problems involves playing dress-up games like children, something they probably got from Ron Paul fans. That strange issue the Tea Partiers share with OWS has even drawn criticism from Glenn Beck who suggested the Teapartiers back off on the costumes (Sep. 16, 2010: peekURL.com/z218vby ).

* The video introducing the Occupirates, which is perhaps even dumber than the last. Like the last, it will make the elites feel good about their supposed opposition being so incredibly incompetent.

* A video showing the Occupiers putting on a stage play - complete with show tunes - about corporate personhood in front of the US Supreme Court. OWS doesn't have any actual policy proposals, but they do have an even weaker version of The Capitol Steps. At the end, they chant "shame" in unison. Intellectually challenging those behind the policies they oppose is beyond them.

* If your ears weren't hurting enough already, I've included as a bonus the video "Target Ain't People". While technically not OWS (it's from August 2010), the MoveOn-level mindset is the same.

UPDATE: The music on the second video is from the movie Pirates of the Caribbean. I can't see a way where that could be Fair Use: the video isn't, for instance, a satire of that movie or who produced it. Whatever the Occupirates' rationale for using someone else's property, it doesn't speak highly of their smarts or integrity.

For the benefit of those in the Occupy Wall Street movement, I'll explain how this is the work of incompetent, ineffective, astonishingly stupid lil' fascists below:

That isn't to say [the Occupy Iowa Caucuses movement] aren't trying to disrupt the candidate events going on around the state this week. On Wednesday, five aggressively interrupted a Ron Paul appearance, including a 16-year-old girl who forcefully ripped down the Paul signs that the Texas congressman's supporters put up to block her. (In response, Paul, who has offered qualified support to the occupy movement, commented on how "wonderful" he finds freedom of speech.) Seven occupy protesters were arrested at Mitt Romney's Des Moines headquarters the same day, where they were protesting the candidate's ties to nearby Wells Fargo bank, and five were arrested Thursday at Paul's campaign headquarters, where they were protesting Paul's proposal to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency.
Right up until the Jan. 3 caucuses, the occupiers are vowing to "chase the candidates and their Wall Street cronies around the state of Iowa, dogging their heels at all their black-tie dinners and staged media events, drowning out their empty rhetoric with the strong, clear message of the 99%," according to the Occupy Iowa Caucuses website.
[Ed Fallon, a radio host and former Iowa Assemblyman who has emerged as one of the leaders of the movement in Iowa] said the movement simply wants to "call them out" - both Republicans and Democrats - for ignoring the needs of the many to favor the wealthy few.
"The opposition is trying to characterize the movement as a bunch of disgruntled renegades who are unwashed and uninformed," he said. "It's a game they're playing to hype up opposition to what the movement is all about."

1. Occupy Iowa Caucuses - as with other OWS groups - shows no support for fundamental American concepts. They don't want to engage their opponents in debate, they want to silence their opponents exactly like all the other minor and major fascists have throughout history. Occupy Iowa Caucuses thinks only they should be allowed to speak and that their opponents should be silenced. Occupy Iowa Caucuses and OWS in general have almost no chance of ever obtaining enough power to take their opposition to speech to the next level. However, they need to be opposed on that alone and their top supporters need to be held accountable for supporting a group that does not support fundamental U.S. concepts.
2. Occupy Iowa Caucuses' rejection of core American concepts isn't even effective. In fact, the Question Authority plan is not only completely consistent with core American concepts, but it would be far more effective than what the Occupiers have in mind. Instead of trying to shout down their opponents, the Occupiers would recruit smart people to engage their opponents in real debate. All the candidates are quite reachable, and it wouldn't take much to show how any of them are wrong about a multitude of subjects. A smart questioner showing a presidential candidate wrong on video for Youtube could have a devastating effect on that candidate's chances at winning the Caucuses. Yet, making that happen is something that Occupy Iowa Caucuses and Occupy Wall Street in general aren't willing to do and aren't capable of doing even if they were willing.
Contact Ed Fallon's show with your thoughts: @fallonforum1/1/12 UPDATE: I added a video of the Occupiers being kicked out of an Iowa coffee shop. After two days it has over 130,000 views and (for what it's worth) a scan of the comments shows that the great majority oppose how the Occupiers do things. Note that the gentleman with the beard does not appear to be Ed Fallon but someone else.1/1/12 UPDATE 2: The latest from the far-left edge of the bell curve comes from Will Storey of the New York Times (link):

Ten arrests, including those of the teenagers, were made outside of Representative Michele Bachmann’s headquarters, the first of five stops made by the protesters and the only one where the targeted candidate was actually present. Five protesters were arrested at the Gingrich office and three more at Rick Santorum’s. The police, who did not hesitate to make the arrests, were waiting at nearly every location. As the day wore on, their patience was clearly wearing thin.
Clarke Davidson, 28, taunted the police at the first three stops, dancing and waving a sign that said “End the Fed” at them and then scampering away if they approached. While he stood motionless in front of Mr. Gingrich’s office, two officers grabbed him by the arms and took him away. One of the officers, who had been the victim of one of Mr. Davidson’s taunts earlier, smugly asked “Hey, how are you?” before zip-tying his hands...
...One of the teenagers who was arrested, Heaven Chamberlain, 16, had been arrested, with her mother, once before at an Occupy event at the state capitol building on October 9. She considers her rap sheet to be lines on her résumé. “It shows that I’m active with the community,” she said, “and that I care about people’s opinions.” She added that she planned to run for president in 2036 (Ms. Chamberlain will be of legal age in 2032, but hopes to gain experience in the Senate).

The story includes an arrested protester crying like a baby, complete with a presumably fairly expensive, foreign-built camera around her (or his) neck. Some aspects of the OWS movement are somewhat valid. However, they've constantly shown that they aren't that smart, that they have emotional problems, and that they don't respect the rights of those with whom they disagree. Just like the Tea Parties, they're having a very loud, very public tantrum and achieving little beyond helping those they present as their opposition. If the elites had a plan to create a fake opposition, they couldn't have come up with a better group than OWS.

On Sunday, December 18, 2011, Occupy Wall Street will be conducting "ImmigrantsOccupy Global Day of Action". This "Action" will put them on the same side of immigration as the Koch brothers, the US Chamber of Commerce, big banks, big businesses, the Federal Reserve, and virtually the entire establishment.
Over two months ago I speculated that Occupy Wall Street is a fake movement comprised of useful idiots for the elites. Sunday's "Action" confirms this.
Their blurbs about the events are below, but first a challenge: I'd like any OWS member or sympathizer to list anyone who's part of the establishment who actually opposes massive immigration. I've written thousands of posts about immigration since 2002, and I can't think of a single establishment figure who wants to actually stop illegal immigration or reduce massive legal immigration. In fact, supporting at the least massive immigration is a membership requirement to be in the establishment.
And, OWS are on the same side of the immigration issue as the establishment.
Meanwhile, OWS is turning their backs on their own fellow citizens - many of them black - who are negatively impacted by massive immigration. In addition to being wrong policy, this move by OWS is bad politics in that it will further erode their support from the "99%".
Who supports massive and/or illegal immigration? Who are OWS's intellectual fellows? Here's a partial list:
* The Koch family, Dick Armey of FreedomWorks, Grover Norquist, and other top tea parties leaders...
* The Federal Reserve and corrupt major banks: see immigration banks...
* The US Chamber of Commerce...
* Occupy Wall Street's top opponent, Michael Bloomberg...
* Other tycoons like Rupert Murdoch and Bill Gates...
* Business groups like the Western Growers, Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, National Association of Manufacturers...
* The entire MSM: New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and on and on...
* The Mexican government...
* Major businesses such as WalMart, Western Union, Home Depot, and on and on...
* Hacks like Tamar Jacoby and Linda Chavez...
* People like the Rubashkins (see Postville)...
* Libertarian groups like the CATO Institute (part of the "Kochtopus")...
* George W Bush, Barack Obama (see Obama immigration) and a whole host of other corrupt politicians...
* The Rockefeller family and other superrich establishment figures...
If I listed them all, it would be a very long list. OWS is on their side, not yours.ADDED: I added a few more names to the list above. Also, I realize that most current or prospective OWS members won't be as familiar with this issue as I am. So, if you're still confused, just follow the money. Illegal immigration is a multi-billion dollar "industry", and lots of corrupt people are trying to get their own share of it. For instance, banks (see the link above) want to take a cut of the money that illegal aliens send home. They also want to profit from illegal aliens depositing funds or by giving them loans. The fewer illegal aliens in the U.S., the less money they'll make. So, those corrupt banks (as well as big business) contribute to those politicians who they know will look the other way on illegal immigration. Those banks and businesses aren't going to contribute to those who cut into their profits, they're going to donate to those who help them make money (even if the money was earned illegally by their customer). OWS isn't trying to stop banks from profiting from illegally-earned money, nor are they trying to stop political corruption as politicians look the other way on illegal activity. OWS is on the wrong side: they're enabling those banks to profit and they're enabling those corrupt politicians.
But, some might ask, "what about the blurb directly below?" "OWS doesn't say they're going to do that, now do they?" Of course they don't say they're going to enable corrupt banks. That's just what's going to happen. If OWS were able to block detentions and deportations, those corrupt banks would cheer. Not only would those corrupt banks get to keep their current illegal alien customers, but OWS would help them gain new customers as there was continued illegal immigration. OWS would be furthering the cycle outlined above where banks donate to corrupt politicians.
In the blurb below, OWS complains (with presumably a straight face) about "wage theft", and they don't mean the impact that massive illegal immigration has on American wages. There are reasons why many big businesses favor immigrant labor, and it isn't because they're nice guys. It's because they want to lower their labor costs, and OWS is enabling them in that effort. Big business favors cheaper, more compliant foreign labor so they don't have to spend as much on wages and so that they can have more control over their workers. OWS is on the side of, for instance, Mohawk Industries, meat processors, Swift Foods, Tyson Foods and so on. OWS is not on the side of their American workers.
But, couldn't we not deport anyone, have continued high illegal immigration, and enforce labor laws to make sure all workers get a fair shake? Sure, we could do that, but it wouldn't work as intended. See enforce labor but not immigration laws and immigration wage floor for why that won't work.
Note that, when it comes to corporate profiteering, OWS doesn't highlight anything above. They don't highlight how, for instance, the Federal Reserve wants a cut of the money that illegal aliens send home. They don't highlight how major banks want to profit from giving home loans to illegal aliens. They don't highlight how corrupt growers and food processors donate to corrupt politicians who look the other way on illegal immigration.
Instead, they only highlight the much, much smaller market for private detention. And, when it comes to that, OWS would increase that market. OWS's actions would increase illegal immigration, and the great majority of Americans oppose illegal immigration. If, due to OWS's influence, illegal immigration increased, that would result in a stronger call for detaining illegal aliens from the great majority of Americans. That would result in more laws like SB1070 in Arizona. On the other hand, if illegal immigration decreased, that would result in fewer detentions and less of a call for detention centers.
So, OWS is going in the wrong direction on corporate profiteering. Not only is OWS ignoring the much larger market involving employing and otherwise profiting off illegal aliens' wages, but when it comes to detention they'd enable the very corporate profiteering they complain about.
As for the last paragraph in the first blurb below, OWS is responding to the negative impacts of NAFTA and the like by making things worse for all concerned. Most Americans don't want illegal immigration, yet that's the policy prescription OWS has for NAFTA. At the same time, OWS's policy prescription deprives countries like Mexico of people who'll stay there and press for political reform. For the elites of both countries, OWS policy ideas are great: Mexican elites have fewer people to take care of and worry about, and American elites have plenty of low-wage workers. That's great for the elites of both countries, but not good for everyone else.
Now, I don't know whether OWS is consciously fake or not: the elites could be pulling their strings and making sure they promote policies that help the elites. Or, OWS could just be useful idiots for those elites. In any case, OWS is in effect a fake group: they're helping the elites make billions at the same time as they harm struggling American workers (and the millions of unemployed).ADDED 2: What if OWS went in the opposite direction and opposed illegal immigration instead of enabling it? Here's what that would mean:
* The elites would drop them like a hot Birther, and that's because - unlike what they're doing now - OWS would be doing something that the elites definitely don't want.
* OWS would be challenging the elites on one of the issues where the elites are weakest.
* OWS would help foreign countries: there would be less braindrain and foreign countries' elites would need to take care of their own people rather than sending them to the U.S.
* OWS would help American workers and the unemployed, many of whom could be doing jobs currently being done by illegal aliens (and with a net benefit to the U.S.)
* OWS would reduce political corruption and corporate profiteering.
Now, compare what OWS could be doing to what they're actually doing.
If OWS was from the start a bogus group designed to assist the elites, would they be doing anything differently from what they're doing now?
------------------------
From an OWS email announcement:

Immigrants are part of the 99% and on December 18th we will march with the Occupy Wall Street movement to demand immigrant justice including putting an end to wage theft, and stopping detentions and deportations of our beloved community members. As the Occupy Wall Street movement highlights corporate profiteering we would like to shed light on those that profit off our labor, exploit workers and refuse to pay dignified wages. We also march against the corporations who support anti-immigrant legislation so they can make billions of dollars by detaining immigrants in private detention centers and deporting nearly 400,000 people per year.
As the occupy movement goes global we also recognize the destructive role that these corporations play in exploiting resources and labor in our home countries which forces millions to migrate. December 18th is the International Day of Migrants and we stand in solidarity with those world wide who are proclaiming Immigrant Rights as Human Rights.

New Sanctuary Movement of Philadelphia and Occupy Philadelphia:
On Sunday, December 18th, people from every continent will be standing up and speaking out for the rights of migrants and against racism. Here in Philadelphia, members of a Latino congregation in N. Philly ...came up with the idea of holding a Posada to call for the end of deportations and an end to the separation of families. This will be a prayerful procession through Center City.
Las Posadas (Spanish for "the inn") is a traditional Mexican festival which re-enacts Mary and Joseph's travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem and their search for room at the inn. A processional stops at a previously selected home and asks for lodging for the night. After being turned away twice, the people are then invited in to read scriptures, eat, and sing carols called villancicos.
Join us in this rich tradition to reflect on what hospitality means, call on decision makers to open this nation's doors and hearts, and to imagine the society we want to live in...

-------------------
Ibid, and note their support for the anti-American DREAM Act and their globalist reference to the United Nations:

On December 18, 1990 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Ten years later the U.N. declared December 18 as International Migrants Day. The Convention emphasizes that the rights of migrants are not to be violated or attacked regardless of the immigration status in the country of residence
United Nations data indicates that 175 million people worldwide are immigrants. Yet, in spite of the many contributions of immigrants to the countries they decided to adopt as their homes, many times they are mistreated, victimized, discriminated and exploited. In the US, Congress has failed to pass any Comprehensive Reform or the DREAM Act, and yet the Administration continues to escalate enforcement, deporting over 1 million people in the last three years.

City officials are in the process of figuring out a future for a large mural in the center of City Hall park, which served as a gathering spot for protesters during the 58-day Occupy L.A. demonstration.
Olga Garay-English, the executive director of the city's Department of Cultural Affairs, said she received a call from the mayor's office Wednesday afternoon about the mural.
"The mayor's office recognizes that this has historical significance so we're working together to make sure that we come up with a good and appropriate solution," she said.
...One side of the plywood now features a large purple octopus, with a crown of the Federal Reserve building, its tentacles clutching a circular ball with a home inside of it.

You might think (especially given his radical history) that L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa would be, say, the leftwing equivalent of Ron Paul when it comes to ending or at least keeping the Federal Reserve in check. You might think he's the Ralph Nader's Noam Chomsky when it comes to keeping corrupt banks in check.
Yet, in 2009, Villaraigosa was one of the forces behind the "Bank on L.A." effort, an attempt to help major banks further profit from illegally-earned money (see the link). The effort was designed in large part to get illegal aliens to open bank accounts. Some no doubt will say, "what's wrong with that?" What's wrong with it is that it puts banks in the position of profiting from illegally-earned money. Banks aren't about to give up a profit center once they get their tentacles around it, and that means that those same banks would donate to politicians who look the other way on illegal immigration. Those banks and their allies are going to underwrite politicians who help them make money, and they aren't going to underwrite (or they're going to oppose) those who would cut into their profits by supporting our laws. See immigration banks for more.
And, note that one of the partners in the Bank On LA effort is the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. You know, a chapter of the octopus from the mural. That Reserve Bank was behind the City of San Francisco effort that served as a model for the Bank on L.A. effort.
The Occupy Wall Street movement needs to take a closer look at who's promoting them, and they need to realize there's a reason why big corrupt businesses and big corrupt banks are on the same side as many of them when it comes to immigration.

Occupy Wall Street is failure: three examples in one story (Occupy Davis, California, tuition)http://24ahead.com/occupy-wall-street-failure-three-examples-one-story-occupy-d2011-11-28T12:48:04-08:002011-11-28T12:50:11-08:00admin

Most stories about groups in the Occupy Wall Street movement only contain one or two dissimilar examples of failure. However, here's a story (link) that contains at least three different types of failure. First the story then the needed explanation for those in the Occupy movement:

Occupy Davis protesters here vented their frustrations to University of California regents Monday about rising tuition costs and the use of force against their demonstrations.
More than 50 UC Davis students signed up for a chance to have their say for - one minute each - during public comment at the regents' teleconference.
...At one point in the teleconference, a UC finance staffer in San Francisco attempted to give a financial report about the state funding situation. However he was drowned out by the sound of activists chanting outside the meeting room there. The chair of the committee finally cut him off, as it was impossible to hear.
...Nearby, Rose Burnes, 19, held a sign saying "Don't raise tuition." The 19-year-old bioengineering student said she was enrolled at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo but had to leave because her family could no longer afford the tuition.

1. Regarding the first paragraph, 50 people of varying qualifications no doubt saying similar things is not anywhere near as powerful as one qualified person who'd have more time attempting to engage the Regents in debate. If the Occupy groups were smart and didn't support direct democracy, they'd elect a small number of qualified representatives to present a unified message. Those representatives would be chosen for their ability to debate and really press issues. See the Question Authority plan and past Occupy coverage; if the Occupy group had used that plan they could have actually had an impact.
2. As they've done in the past, an Occupy group attempted to drown out those who disagree. They once again showed how little respect they have for others' speech. They aren't capable of debate, so they have to drown out opponents.
3. The students are complaining about high tuition shortly after Jerry Brown, Gil Cedillo, and the Democrats passed a bill that would take education resources away from Americans to give to foreign citizens who are here illegally: see DREAM Act. I have little doubt that most of those who complain about high tuition rates also support DREAM Act bills, despite the negative impact such bills have on them. And, despite how popular it would be to oppose such bills.
See past Occupy coverage for other examples of failure and the highly effective ways for them to express their few mainstream concerns.

Occupy Wall Street removed from Zuccotti Park: what they should do nowhttp://24ahead.com/occupy-wall-street-removed-zuccotti-park-what-they-should-do2011-11-15T11:14:05-08:002011-11-15T11:25:40-08:00admin

Early this morning, Michael Bloomberg and the NYPD cleared out Zuccotti Park in New York City, home of the Occupy Wall Street ("OWS") encampment (link). The NYPD first served eviction notices on the "Occupiers", and then cleared them out of the park with only a few providing resistance, such as by chaining themselves to trees. A judge then issued a temporary restraining order against the city's actions, and the latest is that Bloomerg is waiting for clarification of the TRO to proceed.
This would be a great opportunity for OWS to issue the following statement. Given their history, it's extremely unlikely that they'd do it. Instead, expect them to keep doing the same things they've been doing for two months (and expecting a different result):

1. We in the Occupy Wall Street movement realize our opponents on Wall Street are some of the smartest people in the U.S. We realize that while our tactics are great at getting attention, they just don't cut it when going up against very smart people. We can't be delusional about that: we have to face the fact that camping in a public park isn't in any way an answer to those who came up with credit default swaps.
2. We also have to face the fact that the whole encampment thing just isn't working. Occupy Atlanta has a TB outbreak, there have been hundreds of violent and property crimes committed at protest sites throughout the U.S., anarchists have infiltrated our encampments (or are a welcomed or tolerated part of them) and have made us look bad by rioting and seeking confrontations with the police. We can't be delusional about that: encampments just aren't working out.
3. We also realize that in the past we've shown little regard for others' speech. We've allied with anti-speech criminals, many of them foreign. We've gone to public meetings and - instead of trying to engage others in debate - we've acted like the Tea Partiers and tried to shout people down. We realize now just how bad that is for them and for us: we aren't showing anyone wrong, we aren't making any sort of a persuasive argument, and we're just making ourselves look like lil' fascists. We can't be delusional about that either.
4. Accordingly, we realize now that we need to do things in smart ways. Here are the smart things we're going to be doing:
5. We're going to use the Question Authority plan (see the link) and find smart, experienced lawyers to "cross-examine" our opponents on video for Youtube. Our goal with that won't be to shout our opponents down, but to show them wrong. We now realize that actually making an argument and showing how an opponent isn't telling the truth and doesn't promote good policy is more powerful than a thousand encampments. We realize that might sound boring to hotheads who want action and want it now, but we have to be smart and grown-up about this. We can see just how powerful it would be to engage a politician in real debate and show how he promotes bad policies.
6. We'll also be encouraging real debate in another way. Two months after we started, our first demand will be for policy debates (see the link). In those debates, experts from across the spectrum will quiz a presidential candidate on their policies. These won't be like the current debates, where non-expert newscasters simply ask weak questions. These debates will be more like a job interview at Google and will be designed to ensure the best people for the job. We realize this too might sound boring to hotheads, but we see just how incredibly powerful this would be. Not only would it ensure that presidential candidates and future presidents promote good policies, but it would also help show just how poorly served the U.S. is by the mainstream media.
7. We also realize that some of our major opponents are those in the Koch family sphere. Accordingly, we're going to be pursuing the highly effective ways to oppose the Koch brothers listed on that page.
8. We realize that the above might come as a shock to almost everyone. After all, engaging people in Socratic debate is a lot different than our previous actions of camping in parks, shouting people down, and getting in clashes with the police. But, we realize now that we have to be smart about this. We realize now that almost all our actions to date have simply helped our opponents. We realize now that we can't keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Signed,
The (New and Vastly Improved) Occupy Wall Street Movement